Piazza Trento e Trieste, Ferrara, Italy - ©2002 J.Crawford

In the last article we turned to the question of where to begin carfree conversions and how to increase density in the carfree areas. The strategy was simple and obvious: start at the transport halts and gradually expand the carfree areas as alternatives to cars and trucks become readily available. We also considered how to increase the density of building construction. This matter is specific to any given city, but the methods are simple: make streets narrower and reclaim the space for buildings. 

In this final installment, we examine two matters that might be called the carfree gravy: more and better public spaces, and new and expanded green areas in or near the city. We will consider public space first. 

Times Square weeks after the cars were driven out - ©2009 Mark Fleischmann

Improving Public Squares 

Most cities today lack a sufficient number of high-quality squares or plazas. Many cities have them, but they are overwhelmed by the roar of traffic passing through or around them. Once the cars are gone, little needs to be done to improve these spaces and return them to civic uses. As we saw when cars were taken out of Times Square in New York, minor improvements to the space were conducted very quickly and at little cost. This square, long one of the most vibrant spaces in New York, has improved dramatically in quality. Even so, Times Square is still adversely affected by heavy traffic on the cross streets and where Broadway crosses 8th Avenue. 

Campo San Bartolomeo, Venice, Italy - ©2001 J.Crawford

As we push cars out of the centers of our cities, we will find that many squares will enjoy a new lease on life. We should be prepared to spend small amounts of money to improve the paving (i.e., tear up the asphalt and replace it with something prettier) and provide street furniture suitable to the new uses.

Squares and their uses were taken up at great length in Carfree Design Manual. I’ll very briefly summarize a few main points here. 

• Pay attention to sun and wind when considering the functioning of squares and possible improvements 
• There are different kinds of squares; pay attention to existing and potential uses when rearranging squares post-car
• Squares live or die by their furnishings; be sure to add the amenities that will draw people in 
• Add fountains and wading pools if at all possible 
• Try to add sidewalk cafes in most squares, even quite small ones
• Add life to squares by encouraging street performers in at least some of the more active ones 
• Allow food carts in most or all squares 
• If a square is too big, add a high-quality public building to soak up the excess space
• Do not be too hasty to add greenery to squares, but trees are often a welcome addition 

Fountain, Praça do Rossio, Lisbon, Portugal - ©2003 J.Crawford

None of these measures is difficult to implement, and there is a growing body of knowledge regarding the functioning of urban public space. Be sure to consult the literature or experts for advice. Be prepared to adjust the spaces if the first attempts are not entirely successful.

Public safety was more or less taken as a given in Carfree Design Manual, and carfree areas tend to be naturally crime-resistant. This is especially true if the adjacent buildings are occupied around the clock, which provides plenty of eyes on the street. Whatever the case, criminal activity must not be allowed to gain a toe-hold, as that can rapidly destroy the best public spaces, as happened to New York’s wonderful Bryant Park for a couple of decades. Most squares that are too big to draw quite a few people during the evening should be made smaller. Desolate squares are a magnet for criminal activity.

The new and improved squares should lead quickly to a better quality of life for the city’s residents. Over a longer span of time, the improved social cohesion in the city should lead to a significant strengthening of social cohesion. 

Adding Green Space 

Considering green space from the perspective of contemporary US cities, it is apparent that the more central areas consist almost entirely of highways, streets, parking, and buildings. At best there may be a few trees and small parks. Just beyond the downtown core, most US cities shift to some form of suburb. The oldest, closest suburbs will usually be the most dense and have well grown-in trees and greenery. The newest, most distant suburbs will usually have larger houses on much larger lots, with the trees still mere saplings. In all of these cases, this green space is privately owned and maintained. It can be attractive, but it serves the functions of a park only for the family that owns it, and generally poorly at that. These are social spaces only for the family and their guests. They are not shared space, nor are they in any sense wilderness. 

Mirabellgarten, a formal park, Salzburg, Austria - ©2002 J.Crawford

Most suburban areas do have parks, and some of these are quite large. Many are densely wooded and may have streams and ponds. However, except for a fortunate few who live nearby, they are most easily accessed by car. As car traffic declines, more people will be able to reach these parks safely and comfortably by bike. 

However, in suburbs undergoing conversion to the carfree model, parkland is really just a part of a larger problem: these areas are laid out in a fundamentally non-functional manner. Everything, including the parks, is allocated to one specific use. This results in having to drive somewhere for nearly every activity. In addition, the population density of the inhabited areas is too low to support good public transport. 

Therefore, the reshaping of American-style suburbs will result in a wholesale redevelopment of these areas over a span of decades. Rearranging open space will of course be a major part of this process. In fact, the inhabited land area will in most cases decline quite significantly as its density increases several-fold. This will free up a great deal of land for other uses. Given that the supply of transport fuel will become steadily more problematic, it makes sense to grow perishable foods, which consume the most transport energy, as close to every city as circumstances permit. This leads us to the question of which parcels of open land should be made into parks and which should be allocated to other uses. The answer is generally simple. The land nearest the built-up areas should be made into parks because it is the quickest for residents to access and would be used by the greatest number of people. Rather than having a few large parks, many small parks should be established, so that a park is within walking distance of almost everyone. The category “park” includes playing fields and other managed outdoor areas dedicated to recreation and fitness. 

Praça da República, a nicely furnished urban park, Tavira, Portugal - ©2005 J.Crawford

Not all green space should be parks or playing fields; leave most of it for working farms, woodland, wetlands, and so forth. Children especially benefit from ready access to green space with a variety of functions. It is from this that they learn much about how nature functions, and there is increasing evidence that children crave direct contact with natural environments. Be sure to make this available to them, and, not incidentally, to their parents. 

But what of the dense downtown cores that currently lack open space? Some of the broad streets can be made into boulevards. This will reduce the number of traffic lanes and allow the planting of trees, but the remaining road capacity will be more than adequate. This arrangement is especially suitable to the streets along which trams will operate. It will take decades for the trees to grow in, but the relief from the noise, stink, and danger of cars is immediate.

Pocket park, Zürich, Switzerland - ©2002 J.Crawford

Surface-level parking lots can be turned quite easily into mini-parks, and their natural distribution would place a lunch-time pocket park within walking distance of nearly every workplace. Multi-story parking structures will be difficult to reuse, and most will probably be torn down. Good riddance. When siting parks, try to resist the temptation to place them in the center of the city, near public transport halts. This is precisely the land that should be most densely developed because of the proximity to transport. Low-intensity uses, including parks, need to be situated at the limit of walking distance from the transport halts. In most cultures, this will be about 2500 feet (say 750 meters).  

Always reclaim waterfronts. These make by far the best parks, and people are always drawn to water. In some cities, elevated highways along a riverfront have already been torn down, and this example should be followed as quickly as possible in every city. New York was transformed by the removal of the elevated West Side Highway, and the city was finally reunited with the broad Hudson River. 

Conclusion 

This concludes this series of six articles on the conversion of existing cities to the carfree model. We have not considered this matter in much detail until now because the pure case of new carfree cities is simpler to analyze. New carfree cities will doubtless be widely built in India and China, where rapid urbanization continues, with new cities sprouting every year. However, in the Western world, where populations are approximately stable, the carfree conversion must of necessity become the norm. 

In all cases, the process will have to be governed by existing conditions. The Reference Design is a useful yardstick and offers solutions to many problems, particularly transport-related. However, in most cases, carfree conversions will diverge considerably from the Reference Design. This is not a bad thing, so long as the one basic principle is observed: return the streets to human uses. Achieving sustainability is the great task of the 21st century. This is the largest challenge ever faced by humanity, but it comes at a time when our knowledge and human resources are greater than ever. The conversion of existing cities and suburbs to the carfree model is one of the cornerstones of any plan to reach sustainability. Fortunately, this change also produces plenty of tasty gravy for our cities.

— You can read more from J.H. Crawford on Carfree Cities

The matter of increasing the density of the building stock is more complex and specific to a particular city, but the methods are simple and well known. Narrowing streets and reclaiming the space for buildings is not too difficult, although it is almost never done. If the city owns the land, its sale becomes a major source of money.

In all likelihood, most conversions of existing cities will be based on trams (light rail, etc.) running in the streets, if only because the cost of building underground metros in existing urban areas is extremely high. As pointed out in an earlier article, large-scale conversions will have to begin with the establishment of a route network for new public transport service. (In a few cities, existing service will suffice, but even in Manhattan some additional service would be necessary.)

This leads to the construction of new tram lines across the city. Unless the conversion can wait until the new tram lines are built and operating, it will be necessary to start operating the routes with buses. Since the routes are most likely to follow existing major streets, we will find it necessary to remove all car traffic from those streets. Buses will run near the curbs, leaving the middle of the street free for tram-line construction. Keeping cars out of these streets will permit the buses to run without interference from car traffic, which is essential to on-time performance for surface-running public transport.

Given that these streets will have to be made carfree at the start, and given that the areas near the transport stops will be the most valuable, the first conversions should be in the few blocks adjacent to each stop. These are the locations where density will be increased, so that the maximum number of people can live and work as close to a transport stop as possible. By establishing large populations close to each transport stop, it becomes possible to run frequent service that is heavily used and has a relatively low per-passenger operating cost.

The remaining streets will initially remain open to at least some level of motor vehicle traffic. This will permit freight deliveries to be made by truck to streets near the carfree areas. Handcarts can be used to deliver goods the last hundred or so metres. It would also be possible to permit some residents of the area to park a car on these streets. However, a shortage of parking will arise when the tram-route streets are closed to cars, and people who do not live in the neighbourhood may no longer be permitted to park in it, or possibly even to enter it.

Part of the master plan will involve the provision of an interchange area, preferably at the edge of the city, where drivers from rural areas can park their cars and switch to public transport. These facilities would ideally be built early in the process, so that they are in operation by the time the trams begin to run.

How far out from each stop should the initial carfree area extend? This is a difficult issue, because access by vehicles cannot yet be entirely eliminated until the new infrastructure is complete and until the permanent freight delivery system is in operation. This suggests that the walking distance from the transport stop to the edge of the carfree district might not exceed three minutes in the first phase. This translates to a little more than 200 metres, not as the crow flies but as the pedestrian walks. This is an important point, because it is unlikely that the existing street pattern will be a radial arrangement centered on the transport stop. Most cities are built on grids, which are not ideal for carfree arrangements. Every effort should be made to establish pedestrian shortcuts across blocks so as to shorten trips on foot.

As mentioned earlier in this series, discouraging car traffic can be done in many different ways. This effort should begin as early as possible and should be pursued vigorously. As long as it is possible to do something without using a car, using the car should be made slow, difficult, and expensive. This requires a major change in attitude, because it stands the current car-centred paradigm on its head.

Some cities are arranged in a particularly useful manner for our purposes. These are places, such as New Orleans, that have “superblocks.” These are merely large blocks, delineated by wide streets, that contain small blocks delineated by narrower streets. Public transport can be established along the major streets, and the quiet back streets can gradually be converted to carfree areas.

Increase density and reduce street width

Most cities will require increased population densities near transport stops in order to support the high quality of public transport that is required. There are a few notable exceptions, such as Manhattan and Hong Kong, where density actually exceeds by a considerable margin the density required to support good public transport. Elsewhere, buildings will have to be built taller (up to a few stories) and streets will have to be made narrower. These two actions can sufficiently increase density while also freeing up some land for green space out at the edges.

Essential to any well-functioning carfree area is the mixing of uses. Residences, shops, services, schools and workplaces must all be located in every neighbourhood. This minimises the amount of time spent traveling: we provide access by proximity, not by mobility. This is the most difficult point for existing North American suburbs. Zoning prohibited mixed uses, with the result that most trips are beyond walking distance. Make sure that essential goods and services are within walking distance.

In most jurisdictions, this change will require changes in local regulations. Buildings above two stories are not permitted in many places. Buildings are often required to be separated from their neighbours by certain minimum distances, and setback from streets is usually required. Parking and access requirements for cars preclude the necessary changes. No progress can be made without a change in regulation. The support of the local government is thus essential.

In areas that already have a somewhat urban quality, with buildings that abut one another, the effective width of the street can be reduced by allowing buildings to extend into the area above the existing sidewalk, thereby creating arcades. The arcade is a wonderful device in carfree cities, as it provides good protection from rain. It also makes a nice transition between the openness of the street and the confinement of the buildings.

In some cities, streets are so wide that rows of new buildings can be constructed down the middle of the street, creating two narrow streets in place of one broad street intended for cars. It is difficult to grasp this concept because we have become so accustomed to the 6, 8, and even 10 lane streets that dominate life in cities of the automobile age.

The process is not as simple as it might first appear, as utilities are buried beneath the street. Moving utilities so that buildings can be constructed in the middle of the street is a messy, complex, expensive and time-consuming process. At best, this will be achieved over a span of decades. In the mean time, we can create the narrow, comfortable streets we seek by placing one- or two-story buildings in the street. These can be semi-permanent structures that are easy to move. They are light enough that they need only be tied down against wind and earthquake. The street itself can serve as the foundation.

One intriguing possibility is to construct lightweight metal buildings using the excess capacity of the automotive industry. This would retain jobs in this hard-hit sector while providing useful employment. I regret to say that I have never quite worked out the details of how this might be accomplished. If it is not feasible, the manufactured-housing industry ought to be able to supply the buildings we need using well-established techniques. I don’t see any intrinsic reason that these buildings must be as ugly as they usually are.

Written by Joel Crawford

It is not enough simply to remove cars and trucks from the street. Fortunately, the necessary changes are fast, cheap and delightful. They will yield large improvements in the quality of street space, which in turn should bring sharply improved function as social space. The streets will look and feel completely different once this is completed, even though the changes are not so large.

Improvement in the quality of the streets as social spaces is vital. The common complaint in modern industrialised societies is social isolation. It is no coincidence that this problem arose in parallel with the arrival of widespread car usage. It is not just that people in cars are highly isolated from their fellow citizens; it is that the cars themselves damage the social functioning of public spaces.

Once cars are gone, the streets will become quieter, safer and far more attractive places. Even without much effort, their function as social spaces will improve dramatically. If evidence of this is required, we need only consult the work of Donald Appleyard, in particular his seminal Livable Streets.

As you can see in Times Square, above, simply removing the cars helps a lot, but it is not enough. The hasty conversion of several blocks of Broadway reveals the need for planning and action to reap the full benefits. In the case of Times Square, only minimal improvements were made to the space. Even so, pedestrians hungry for space immediately took over the raw street and the hundreds of lawn chairs the city supplied. (In fairness to New York, the change was made on a trial basis. Improvements are in progress.)

Look at street scenes from a century ago. Notice how strongly integrated the streets are in the pre-automobile age. There is no reason that we cannot return to the simplicity and beauty of that era. Prove to yourself the importance of this change. Visit a randomly-chosen city street corner. Mentally remove from the scene everything that is needed because the street is used by cars. Speeding cars, parked cars, parking meters, pavement marking, traffic signals, gasoline (petrol) stations, traffic signs, overly-large commercial signs, and so forth clutter your field of view on most city streets. You will discover that the appearance of the street would change quite dramatically, and entirely for the better, if this clutter were removed.

We need to put outdoor furniture in these spaces once the cars are gone. This should be better than flimsy aluminium-and-plastic lawn chairs. Something more along the lines of the example from Zermatt is needed. And be sure to consult the work of William H. Whyte on making public spaces that the public will use and cherish. This is not difficult, but some thought is required. Whyte firmly believed that seating should be adjustable by the sitter. He gives countless examples of people coming up to a chair and making a change in its location and orientation. Some of the changes are so small that one wonders why any change was made at all. But notice your own behaviour around chairs. Observe that you do, in fact, tend to adjust their position, sometimes minutely.

Besides seating, there are many other elements that fall under the category of “furniture”.

Curbs are probably no longer necessary, which means that curb-cuts, an ever-present tripping hazard, can also be removed. Some means is required to channel storm water to drains, but this can be quite simple and unobtrusive, as shown above. Accessibility problems are greatly reduced when curbs are eliminated. This helps not only people in wheelchairs but anyone using wheeled carts, baby buggies, or bikes.

We are free to add many things to the streets, because, in nearly all cases, the street space that becomes available will be much larger than pedestrians and bicyclists require. The amenities that we add should be chosen specifically to improve life on the street.

People love water. Kids really love water. There’s plenty of room for it once the cars are gone. The roar of cars will be replaced by the quiet splash of water, and sometimes by the shrieks of delighted children. It’s difficult to make a bad fountain. Practically anything you can do with water will improve the street. Just don’t drown the kids.

The streets of most modern cities are barren. Cars have taken up most of the space that could have been used for plants and trees. Although trees can bring their own problems, think about planting some. Yes, the roots can get into the sewers and break up the pavement, but these problems can be managed. When trees are thought too difficult, portable planters can still bring green onto the street, as shown in Basel, above.

News kiosks are found all over Europe and are quite common in many North American cities as well. European kiosks carry an astounding variety of useful things beyond newspapers and magazines. Transit passes, maps, lighters, and so on. If it’s small and doesn’t require refrigeration, it can probably be sold in a kiosk. A good kiosk can become a social centre in its own right and takes up very little space. Be liberal in their use.

Perhaps nothing characterises the quality of life in Europe better than the outdoor café. They are found from one end of the continent to the other, even in surprisingly cold climates. They are a major hub of social activity. Governments in some countries provide small incentives to their owners, in recognition of their social importance. Although they continue to exist in streets with car traffic, their function is significantly impaired by the noise, stink and ugliness of car traffic. Put a café on every street corner in busy parts of town.

You will not want a great many markets, but any thriving district can support one. Once again, Europe shows the way. Most cities there still have outdoor markets that are a central facility in their neighbourhoods. Some governments have recognised the importance of their function and provide preferential tax treatment to stall holders. They are an excellent means of bringing life’s daily necessities into every district. They should be centrally located. Often they can serve as an extension of the surrounding stores. Be wary of allowing truck traffic to serve markets. The practice is common, and in some cases it cannot (now) be avoided. However, as a long-term solution, trucks damage the very goose that lays the market eggs.

Better Biking

The cycling improvements are quite obvious and well known to every urban cyclist. Sewer drains need to be designed not to trap wheels. Pot holes need to be fixed correctly. Once the cars and especially trucks are gone, the streets should remain in good condition for much longer periods. Good bike racks are needed. In particularly dense parts of the city, multi-story bike parking garages may be needed. Amsterdam has a huge one, right next to the central train station.

I have long advocated what I call the drag-and-drop bike. The city puts out thousands of them. You grab one, ride it to your destination, throw it in a rack, and forget it. No coins, no passes, no locks, nothing. The seat height needs to be easily adjustable. Beyond that, the cheapest possible bikes can be used. Thefts can simply be tolerated, and they will be a comparatively minor problem if the bikes are indelibly marked with the name of the city that owns them. Paris has recently had some problems with its Vélib system. Those bikes, which are not free and are somewhat of a nuisance to use, apparently cost well over a thousand euros each. (I can’t understand how.) Cheap, mass-produced 12-speed bikes can be had at retail for under US$50 in some markets. A city buying thousands of single-speed bikes should be able to get a better deal than that.

Resist the temptation to install strong divisions between bikes and pedestrians. Something like the scheme used in Ravenna, above, is adequate. The bikes are supposed to use the white area in the middle. Pedestrians are supposed to use the darker part of the pavement. Nobody freaks out if someone is in the “wrong” place. People who, for whatever reason, are not where they are supposed to be should be alert to other street users, to make sure they aren’t blocking them. And in streets this narrow, a reasonably sedate speed should be enough for cyclists. Larger streets with heavy bike traffic probably do want separate lanes and may even need traffic signals. But, for the smaller streets, cheap and simple is enough.

In your efforts to convert neighbourhoods in your city to the carfree model, be patient. It will be difficult, frustrating and time-consuming. When you waver, just keep the photograph above in mind. Think what a wonderful street this could be, if not for the cars. That should give you incentive enough to carry on. And good luck.

Written by Joel Crawford.

In this article we look at the need for dramatically improved public transport as one of the cornerstones of nearly every carfree conversion. A few cities are so small as not to need internal public transport, and a few others already have such good public transport that few improvements are needed. However, nearly every city needs a greatly expanded route network, more frequent service, and faster operations. None of this is difficult to achieve.

The first change required is a change in attitudes. This must begin with the city government and include the public transport agency. In most places today, public transport is regarded as a second-class service for second-class citizens. This is why few people in the US use it: everyone but the poor is expected to have a car and use it routinely. In a few cities, such as New York, the middle class does use public transport and reasonably good service is offered. More positive attitudes prevail in most of Europe.

Public transport must become a first-class service. It must be safe at night, clean, operated by professionals, reliable, and on time. It should be free of all advertising.

It is accepted in most jurisdictions that people will have to stand during rush hour. It is thought too expensive to provide seats for all. With buses, any increase in seating capacity requires more buses and more drivers. However, rail systems can operate longer trains to provide more seats, without increasing the number of operators. Whatever is done, sardine-packed conditions should never arise.

One advantage of driving is ease with which you can take along practically anything you wish. We will not achieve this level of convenience with public transport, but we can get close by making it easy to take along shopping carts and baby buggies. (The system must be fully accessible to wheelchairs in any case.) This requires level loading (boarding platforms at the height of the vehicle floor), which also eliminates slow loading up and down stairs.

Efficient Route Network

Walking to a stop and waiting for a vehicle are usually the two largest components of a trip by public transport. We need to bring stops to within about 500m of every location in the city. This does not entirely solve the problem because the rider may not be going where the vehicle is, which necessitates a transfer. It is not practical to establish a route network in a large city that does not require an occasional transfer. However, we can hold transfers to a minimum and ensure that the actual transfer is quick and easy. This means short walks, no stairs, and short waits for the next vehicle.

The best route network is usually a hub-and-spoke arrangement, with transfers occurring mostly in the downtown area, where service is concentrated and vehicles arrive frequently. The most common activities must be concentrated in the city centre or situated in every neighborhood, as with grocery stores and elementary schools.

Good public transport service is too costly unless the population is clustered around relatively few stops. There is otherwise not enough demand to justify frequent service. The necessary density was usual in most cities less than a century ago and can still be found in many cities. High density became unbearable in the US during the 1920s, when private cars usurped huge amounts of space for parking and movement. At the same time, cars imposed noise, pollution, and danger. That is why, after WW II, American cities rapidly dispersed into low-density, auto-centric suburbs, a pattern now common around the world. Good public transport is impossible in the suburbs: destinations are too spread out and density is too low for any reasonable system to work well.

Choice of Mode

Service-quality considerations dictate the choice of rail systems over bus systems whenever possible. It is clear that people perceive the difference. As I once said, half in jest, “Nobody with a choice ever took a bus anywhere.”

If surface-running rail systems are chosen, they must be installed on their own rights-of-way, where they never compete with cars for road space. When Zurich, Switzerland, decided not to build an underground metro but to fix its trams instead, the first change was to move cars out of the places where they blocked trams.

The choice between trams and metros is argued endlessly. However, in cities with populations over about one million, at least a few metro lines are almost essential, as only they can provide rapid service over the greater distances of a large city. Trams can provide supplementary, lower-demand service in big cities and can be the principal mode in smaller cities. The smaller trains are actually an advantage given the lower levels of demand.

Capital costs of new metros in cities are extremely high, whereas tram systems can be installed comparatively cheaply. However, when demand warrants the high capacity of a metro, it can still be cost-effective due to the comparatively low per-passenger operating costs. A further advantage of the metro is that it can reach very high speeds on its protected right-of-way. Trams can exceed 50 km/hr, but noise and safety problems mean that surface vehicles should travel no faster.

Very large cities need limited-stop regional rail service like the RER in Paris, which links the suburbs with a few major stops in central Paris. New York runs express trains that serve a similar function. Once again, it is a question of speed. Local trains making many stops achieve rather low average speeds, which makes long trips tedious.

High-Quality Service

If we are to ask people to abandon their cars, then public transport must be available at all hours of the night. Many larger European cities have buses that run at least once an hour during the night, and New York’s subway never quits. Some level of night-time service is nearly essential.

Route planning is usually a tiresome chore for passengers. Finding a route to an unfamiliar destination can take a lot of time. The Dutch have an excellent nationwide system that will plan any trip you can make by public transport (which is nearly all of them). I found it reasonably easy to use and highly reliable. This kind of internet service is moderately expensive to establish but cheap to operate.

Likewise, information should be available at tram and metro stops regarding the time until the next vehicle arrives. This allows you to run an errand when you discover that you have a few minutes before the train arrives.

Faster Service

Public transport service must become much faster than it is today. Ideally, it should be faster to take transit than it is to drive, which makes it much easier to persuade people to give up their cars. A number of conditions must be met.

Transit managers need to speed journeys. Seconds count. This is not the current attitude at most systems, where service is considered acceptable if trips run less than five minutes late. But fast service can only be achieved if every aspect of operations is considered from a time perspective. For instance, it would be common in many systems to order new trains without fully considering how long it takes to close the doors and depart. “Only” five seconds might be saved here, but even on a journey of moderate length, that can save the passenger a minute.

Increases in top operating speed have a smaller effect on stop-to-stop time than might be supposed, but it is still important. Metro trains should routinely reach speeds of 100 km/hr, even though they may remain at that speed for a fraction of a minute. Most of the energy can be recovered through regenerative braking.

More important is the achievement of high acceleration, which has a pronounced effect on stop-to-stop times. Research in the 1930s showed that quite high acceleration is tolerable, even for standing passengers, if it is smooth. Some modern trams only achieve quite low accelerations, which significantly reduces average speeds.

Keep the vehicle moving. Station dwell times are a large part of total time. It should be possible to open doors on both sides of the train to allow faster boarding. If one side is used for disembarking passengers and the other for boarding, times are still further reduced, and there is less jostling.

Fewer stops make for much faster service. This point is rarely appreciated. Cutting out a stop saves the time that the vehicle is stopped and also the time lost to braking and acceleration. Buses are chronically affected by this problem – they’ll stop almost anywhere. Good practice keeps the stops at least 400m apart, and 700m is better. Reducing the number of stops also makes the journey more comfortable. Each district must have only one, centralised stop for a given route.

Finally, fare-free transit is worth serious considering. We will not go into the details here, but it saves a lot of time, money, and aggravation for the passenger, which makes transit a more attractive option.

By J.H. Crawford

Gradual Implementation

Although many workers and residents will prefer to walk or cycle to their destinations, almost any carfree conversion demands some form of public transport for a portion of travel within the city. Some people are unable to walk any great distance, or even to move by wheelchair without assistance. Some trips are inconveniently long to cycle, especially in larger cities. And some people, myself included, do not enjoy cycling when the temperature is below freezing. We need frequent, reliable, comfortable service. The means are well known and can be experienced in many places, for instance in Switzerland.

If we accept the requirement for better public transport as a precondition for carfree conversions, then in most places we will have to wait while public transport is improved. This suggests that conversions should start at locations that are already relatively well served by bus or rail. In the early years, these areas will need car parking at the periphery. As public transport is improved, this need should disappear.

The Latin American experience with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) shows that these systems can be installed in just a few years. I believe BRT master plans should include long-term plans to replace the buses with trams, as buses are uncomfortable, expensive, noisy, and smelly. In cases where streets are very narrow, small trams can pass where a full-sized bus cannot. This is seen in quite a few places in Lisbon, Portugal.

As an aside, I have for years advocated the development of wireless trams. This would enable new surface-running tram routes to be built as quickly as BRT. All that is necessary is to lay the rails. Almost all new trams are low-floor, so the high-level boarding platforms that BRT requires are not needed. Low-level platforms are quick and cheap to construct. They have the smallest possible impact on the street. At the turn of the last century, tram systems were installed in hundreds of cities nearly overnight. We could do it again, especially if we no longer had to string overhead wires. The aesthetic improvement is considerable, and the cost of maintaining the wires is eliminated.

As discussed in the last issue, we should think in terms of rings of decreasingly strict limitations on vehicles as we move away from the central carfree areas. Not only will the diameters of these rings be increased over time, new carfree zones will be added as new public transport and cycling infrastructure are completed.

It will be nearly impossible to keep trucks out of the carfree area until a rail-based freight delivery system is in place. Dedicated systems will be difficult to install in existing cities, but we can use trams for most freight delivery, a practice that is more than a century old and which is enjoying a small resurgence in Europe. In any case, trucks should be restricted to limited hours, a practice now common in Europe. Load consolidation should be enforced. This eliminates the many nearly empty trucks entering the city and sends only fully loaded trucks in their place.

The governing principle is that an area can be made carfree as soon as good cycling infrastructure has been built, public transport is not farther than a five-minute walk away, and reasonable arrangements for freight delivery have been made. An important corollary is that the transport route system must permit reasonably easy, quick, and direct service to the important parts of the city. Transfers are the bane of rapid service. They cannot be avoided entirely, but an efficient route network and frequent service help to make them bearable.

Incentives to Reduce Car Traffic

One trick that has already been quite widely employed is to make car travel so annoying that it is easier to walk, bike, or take public transport. Cities like Groningen in the Netherlands have divided the city centre into several zones. Private cars may not move directly from one zone to the next. They must go all the way out of the city, around the ring road, and back in. Buses, however, move freely between the zones, as do cyclists. Car traffic in the city centre is much reduced.

In similar fashion, streets can be rearranged so that there are fewer direct routes for cars. Implementation can be as simple as just putting some bollards, tables, and chairs into the middle of a housing block. This closes the street to through traffic and gives back some important space to local residents without immediately eliminating too much on-street parking (which is likely to give rise to fierce resistance if proposed). A vital measure is the completion of the network of walking and cycling paths, so that direct routes are established to all destinations. In contemporary North American sprawl, destinations that are quite near by require long routes trips to reach them. This is no problem for car drivers but poses a real obstacle for pedestrians. A few simple paths can solve the problem.

More is required than just these measures. I believe that financial disincentives to urban driving should be implemented. These can be put in place without waiting for better public transport, and can be used to pay for it. External costs, such as air pollution and noise, should be charged and paid for by drivers. By some calculations, this will cause the price of fuel to increase by a factor of ten.

These changes will considerably disrupt people’s lives, so the first increases should be small, with the full charge being implemented over a span of several years. (It has not always been done this way: London’s congestion charge in The City started at GBP £5.00).

Parking fees should be increased immediately. Free parking should be eliminated, and all parking should be taxed. Again, rates should start rather low but planned and announced increases should encourage people to begin to change their transport behaviour. Experience in Europe shows that people will leave their cars at home if there are strong disincentives to driving and reasonable alternatives.

A change of character for our streets

Other disincentives to driving are really incentives to use other modes. We must make the streets more beautiful, quieter, and more lively. We should encourage street food and street entertainment. As street space is reclaimed from cars, we must improve it. This labour-intensive work actually requires relatively little material. We want to remove parking meters, pavement markings, street signs, and the like. They can be replaced by planters, trees, benches and tables, convenient public toilets and drinking fountains, better light-duty pavement, and so forth. We need to fix the storm drains that trap bike wheels and fill the potholes that make riding rough. We will need more bike racks and more public-use bikes.

We can reset traffic signals to give shorter greens for cars, which means that pedestrians and cyclists will not be so long delayed. This has the secondary effect of reducing the capacity for car traffic. Intersections should be narrowed and the turning radius sharpened, so cars have to slow down and pedestrians and cyclists have a safer crossing.

We will need some car-sharing operations because travel to areas outside the city is not always possible by other modes. Experience has shown that car-sharing schemes encourage people to get rid of their own cars, which helps tremendously with parking. At the same time, the rather high fees for using a car discourage casual use.

Finally, I will plead again for what I call the “drag-and-drop bike”. This just takes the white-bike program one step farther. The bikes are free for anyone to use. There are no locks, no pin-passes, and no electronic release. You just grab the nearest bike and shove it in a rack when you’re done. I suppose that kids needing some pocket money will move the bikes to where they are needed and ask for some loose change in return. The bikes themselves can be quite cheap as long as they are simple, single-speed bikes. Solid ones that never go flat would replace pneumatic tires.

We will strive to make a delightful environment that encourages people to give up their cars and walk, bike, or take transit. As we do this, the quality of social life on the street will improve dramatically. People will notice the difference and support the ongoing change to a city with ever-fewer cars. One day the last one will be gone.

Necessary zoning change

We will also need quick implementation of some zoning changes. An end to single-use zoning as practiced in the USA for the past 70 years is essential. Any use should be permitted at in any location as long as it does not interfere with residential life. This change would reverse the concentration of retailers into a few massive stores located far from where most people live. Families who wanted to open a small retail business in their homes would have a presumptive right to do it. Families should be permitted to move into areas that were once reserved only for offices or stores. In this manner, we can bring goods and services back within walking distance of the places people live and work. This greatly reduces the need for mobility and saves people time. The big-box stores will wither away.

By Joel Crawford, carfree.com

The Lyon Protocol Revisited

One of the many fruits of the first Towards Carfree Cities conference held in Lyon, France in 1997 was the drafting of a document known as ‘The Design and Implementation of Large Car-Free Districts in Existing Cities’. I was one of the authors of this document and later gave it the descriptor ‘The Lyon Protocol’. It was a rather hasty piece of work, and so far as I am aware, it has never been revised. I reviewed it before starting work on this article, and I am pleased to see that it holds up quite well after a dozen years. Some of the principles it established have since been expanded upon, most recently in ‘Carfree Design Manual’, which takes as a fundamental belief that future residents of a carfree district should be the ones to do much of its panning and most of its design.

Let us begin with a quick look at the Lyon Protocol. First of all, it recognised the effects of scale. Implementation of small projects would be quite different from larger projects. It was recognised that any large conversion project would require the early involvement of all organisations and individuals who would be affected, including people outside the immediate area of the conversion. Conflicts must be identified early, before they become problems, and broad support for the project must be developed. A data-gathering process, including mapping, demographics, and transport, is an early step. All available information on the site is needed. This is an immense amount of data, but most of it is routinely gathered for large-scope urban planning efforts.

A working group would then develop a preliminary concept. This includes the boundaries of the carfree area, proposed changes in traffic circulation, traffic-reduction measures, and the ultimate carfree plan. In particular, freight delivery and through traffic require careful attention, as these concerns can sink a carfree project at an early stage. Phasing was also mentioned as an early concern, because in most cases a sudden conversion to the desired end result is politically impossible. A ‘carrot-and-stick approach’ would encourage good practices and discourage bad ones. Public transport, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure would be improved. Measures would be adopted to slow traffic, reduce the space devoted to cars, and restrict parking.

Street parking near the centre would be the first to go. Cars would be required to park steadily farther away from the centre, encouraging people to use public transport or bike. Parking fees would be greatly increased over a period of a few years. Car use would be reduced gradually. The first to go would be private cars of non-residents, followed later by private cars of residents. Traffic cells would discourage cross-city travel. Parking permits would be sold only with a transport pass. One final change is the conversion of freight delivery from conventional trucks to the chosen system. (The retention of truck delivers during limited hours is an option.) Ultimately, only emergency-service vehicles should be permitted.

The news media are essential to a good outcome, but specific plans should not be presented too hastily. The ground must be prepared by a long discussion of the problems caused by cars and the alternatives that solve these problems. The benefits are large and should be stressed from the start. If this is badly handled, resistance might harden at an early stage. The process is inherently political, and the support of local politicians is essential. To secure broad support, the concept plan is presented to each of the affected groups for discussion. As unmet needs are revealed, they will affect the plan. The process of contacting groups and responding to their concerns would continue until all serious obstacles have been overcome.

Near the end of the process, a week-long intensive community design workshop could be held to manage the more stubborn problems and to secure broad agreement by all stakeholders. This workshop could be sponsored by the city government, which by this time should be strongly in support of the plan. Interested parties would join in this brain-storming process, with the objective of reaching consensus on a plan. City planning officials would then develop final plans and phasing. Do make certain that the city’s final plan respects this consensus. Major deviations should not be adopted without broad discussion.

The Long-Term Master Plan

The Lyon Protocol did not directly address the question of removing cars from an entire city. This leads to a risk that the implementation of plans in one area might interfere with later expansions of the carfree areas. There are a number of points where this might occur, but parking, public transport, and freight delivery are likely.

I do not foresee that cars will completely disappear. Eventually, their use in cities will be largely or entirely prohibited, but a transport mode that reaches rural areas is required, probably involving some continued use of private cars. The interface between rural cars and the city thus requires careful planning. I propose simply to build multi-story parking garages (preferably underground) at the city’s edge for visitors’ cars and car-sharing vehicles. City residents who regularly need a car to travel outside the city could rent a space. These garages must be linked to the city by good public transport. This is, of course, less convenient that driving directly to a destination within the city and will discourage people from using cars unnecessarily.

In Carfree Cities, I proposed the development of ‘utility areas’ at the edges of carfree cities. Utilitarian functions would be located here, including parking, staging areas for freight delivery, warehousing, heavy manufacturing, and other noxious uses. Utility areas require connection to the rest of the city by public transport. For freight delivery I have proposed ‘metro-freight’, an adaptation of passenger metro technology. This system uses standard shipping containers to deliver freight to locations alongside a dedicated freight-only route that runs through the city. Smaller and lighter freight can be delivered short distances by bike or special modes as required. I want to eliminate routine truck traffic in carfree cities.

I believe that the carfree city, if it is to exceed a population of, say, 20,000, will depend upon a high-quality public transport system to connect the various city districts. I believe that this should be a rail-based system, such as a tram or underground metro. I am opposed to the construction of any above-ground transport facility. It is simply too ugly, intrusive, and noisy. Buses could be used instead of rail systems, but the quality of service is lower, and operating costs are higher. Finally, buses are noisy and polluting. Even with the advances made by ‘bus rapid-transit’ systems, I hold that they are inferior to rail.

The master plan for a city that is contemplating a widespread conversion to the carfree model must establish the routes for these systems and the locations for the parking garages and other utility functions. These are not decisions that can be taken on the fly. Rail systems do have one serious limitation: they do not accommodate sharp curves. It is true that narrow-gauge trams can turn remarkably sharp corners (often with an ear-splitting screech), but this is a bad design condition that slows service and increases maintenance costs.

About 50 years ago, Amsterdam looked at its need for metros and adopted a metro network plan. Some parts of that plan will probably never be realised, but once the troublesome North-South line is finally completed, the city will have a coherent metro network that largely follows the originally-identified routes. This sort of large-scale planning should be commenced at an early date in most cities. It is otherwise likely that awkward conditions will arise that have no good long-term solution. Either the work will have to be done again, at huge expense, or the limitations will have to be accepted as permanent.

Keeping to Consensus

This leaves us with the conclusion that while small-scale, local projects can proceed largely without consideration of the city as a whole, large-scale conversions must anticipate long-term changes. One point that is likely to be overlooked is the provision of adequate green space. Many existing cities are seriously deficient in parks near the centre. Plans for carfree conversions should include the ultimate reversion of some of the more sparsely-settled areas to green space, at the same time that areas near transport halts are made more compact.

The need for centralised planning in no way implies that citizens should be excluded from the process. Typically, public input is limited to the conclusion of planning. The planners have already decided what they want to do, in great detail. Changes are difficult to make at that point. A better process involves citizens and their visions at an early stage, with renewed consultation as the plans emerge and are refined. As a matter of practical democracy, this is a better way to proceed.

Finally, we must guard against the influences of special interests. Nowhere more than in urban planning are the interests of rich individuals and corporations at stake than in the adoption of a city’s master plan. It is probably impossible to eliminate this influence, but a transparent process in which all stakeholders and their concerns are clearly identified will go a long ways towards reducing the corrupting influence of private interests on public planning.

In the next article, we will take up the matter of gradual implementation in more detail.

By Joel Crawford

For more information on the Lyon Protocol, please visit: www.carfree.com/lyon_protocol.htm

MOTTOS:

“This leaves us with the conclusion that while small-scale, local projects can proceed largely without consideration of the city as a whole, large-scale conversions must anticipate long-term changes”

“Nowhere more than in urban planning are the interests of rich individuals and corporations at stake than in the adoption of a city’s master plan”